This isn't a blocker for me currently as there are alternatives with a less stringent license which, with a bit of work, will do.
It might be argued that column stores belong on a central server but, for a number of reasons, it may make sense to place the store on a mobile device. If, as others have asserted, the LGPL precludes this then fastbit is at a disadvantage. I would want to know as I'm fairly sure the LGPL is not intended to create barriers for adoption. > On Feb 4, 2014, at 1:34 PM, David Aiken <david_ai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > BSD may be another option. For what it's worth, there are a number of > Lawrence Livermore projects released under BSD: > > https://wci.llnl.gov/codes/visit/license.html > http://computation.llnl.gov/casc/sundials/download/license.html > https://wci.llnl.gov/codes/silo/release_notes.html > https://github.com/rose-compiler/rose/blob/master/COPYRIGHT (revised BSD) > https://github.com/digitalplaywright/smgit/blob/master/License (revised BSD) > > Some background on appropriate use of BSD for research orgs: > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html#recommendations > > hope it helps.. > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:34 PM, David Aiken <david_ai...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> hi.. >>> >>> From what I can gather, fastbit uses the LGPL license. I'm not a lawyer, >>> but i believe this license requires users which static-link to the fastbit >>> library to release the entire application source under LGPL or provide >>> means to update the LGPL portion and rebuild the application. >>> >>> If this is correct, it significantly reduces the usefulness of the library. >>> Mobile devices are now heavily used and Apple has significant market share, >>> particularly now that they have agreements with major providers in China. >>> The capacity of these devices now rivals or exceeds low-end desktop boxes. >>> For security reasons (since these devices hook into the phone network) >>> Apple sandboxes all of the applications. Shared libraries add complexity in >>> a sandboxed environment, which i suspect is why Apple only supports static >>> linking on these devices. It would be Nice if they made allowances for >>> keeping LGPL binaries isolated, but i think i understand why they haven't. >>> >>> Apple requires users to sign applications for submission to the App Store. >>> Therefore the private key is needed to update the application in accordance >>> with the LGPL. Obviously this is not something a developer (or Apple) would >>> want to release into the public domain. Without the key you cannot recreate >>> the original application binary. The legalities get murky. >>> >>> It may be possible to qualify the fastbit license to relax the LGPL for >>> static linking on mobile devices, but perhaps the Apache 2.0 or MIT license >>> meet your needs (as per http://tldrlegal.com/licenses/browse). A separate >>> license for commercial use could also be used with proceeds going to the >>> FSF. >>> >>> Cocos2d went from LGPL to MIT: >>> http://www.cocos2d-iphone.org/forums/topic/is-lgpl-really-the-best-license-option-for-the-future-of-cocos2d/ >>> >>> Qt went the commercial route: >>> http://qt-project.org/wiki/Licensing-talk-about-mobile-platforms >>> >>> in any case, thanks for releasing your library.. it's a nice bit of >>> engineering IMHO _______________________________________________ FastBit-users mailing list FastBit-users@hpcrdm.lbl.gov https://hpcrdm.lbl.gov/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fastbit-users
